Because we should run our legal system on quasi proof?
Example of what I hear from the right - The trucks delivered boxes and we KNOW the boxes contained illegal ballots, so Biden really lost and you have to put Trump in office instead.
Did I just misstate the argument? Can you fill in any holes? Tell me what I didn't say because the pieces of that sentence don't hold up.
Yes, you massively misstated this. You are either intentionally trolling or just being intentionally ignorant of the facts.
We are not saying “you have to put Trump in office instead.” That ship has sailed. What we ARE saying is that given an extraordinary amount of substantial evidence that problems occurred, problems that could have swayed the election, these accusations should be investigated, and not swept under the rug, which is PRECISELY what courts across the country have done.
In Wisconsin alone, courts said initially that Trump republicans couldn’t challenge voting law changes made by an unelected commission absent proof of fraud, and then AFTER the election, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Hagedorn, who ran as a constructionist but has ruled as an activist, said Trump was too late to challenge the results.
Heads I win, tails you lose. Is that justice?
People like you are saying no convictions = no proof. As if convictions could happen within 60 days of the election.
We are saying investigate, investigate, investigate. You are saying STOP IT, NO PROOF.
Show Posts
2 Likes
